Open Access Repository

Consequences matter: compassion in conservation means caring for individuals, populations and species


Downloads per month over past year

Johnson, PJ, Adams, VM ORCID: 0000-0002-3509-7901, Armstrong, DP, Baker, SE, Biggs, D, Boitani, L, Cotterill, A, Dale, E, O'Donnell, H, Douglas, DJT, Droge, E, Ewen, JG, Feber, RE, Genovesi, P, Hambler, C, Harmsen, BJ, Harrington, LA, Hinks, A, Hughes, Joelene, Katsis, L, Loveridge, A, Moehrenschlager, A, O'Kane, C, Pierre, M, Redpath, S, Sibanda, L, Soorae, P, Price, MS, Tyrrell, P, Zimmermann, A and Dickman, A 2019 , 'Consequences matter: compassion in conservation means caring for individuals, populations and species' , Animals, vol. 9, no. 12 , pp. 1-8 , doi: 10.3390/ani9121115.

137490 - Conseq...pdf | Download (233kB)

| Preview


Human activity affecting the welfare of wild vertebrates, widely accepted to be sentient, and therefore deserving of moral concern, is widespread. A variety of motives lead to the killing of individual wild animals. These include to provide food, to protect stock and other human interests, and also for sport. The acceptability of such killing is widely believed to vary with the motive and method. Individual vertebrates are also killed by conservationists. Whether securing conservation goals is an adequate reason for such killing has recently been challenged. Conventional conservation practice has tended to prioritise ecological collectives, such as populations and species, when their interests conflict with those of individuals. Supporters of the ‘Compassionate Conservation’ movement argue both that conservationists have neglected animal welfare when such conflicts arise and that no killing for conservation is justified. We counter that conservationists increasingly seek to adhere to high standards of welfare, and that the extreme position advocated by some supporters of ‘Compassionate Conservation’, rooted in virtue ethics, would, if widely accepted, lead to considerable negative effects for conservation. Conservation practice cannot afford to neglect consequences. Moreover, the do-no-harm maxim does not always lead to better outcomes for animal welfare.

Item Type: Article
Authors/Creators:Johnson, PJ and Adams, VM and Armstrong, DP and Baker, SE and Biggs, D and Boitani, L and Cotterill, A and Dale, E and O'Donnell, H and Douglas, DJT and Droge, E and Ewen, JG and Feber, RE and Genovesi, P and Hambler, C and Harmsen, BJ and Harrington, LA and Hinks, A and Hughes, Joelene and Katsis, L and Loveridge, A and Moehrenschlager, A and O'Kane, C and Pierre, M and Redpath, S and Sibanda, L and Soorae, P and Price, MS and Tyrrell, P and Zimmermann, A and Dickman, A
Keywords: ethics, compassion, consequentialism, virtue
Journal or Publication Title: Animals
Publisher: MDPIAG
ISSN: 2076-2615
DOI / ID Number: 10.3390/ani9121115
Copyright Information:

Copyright 2019 The Authors. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Related URLs:
Item Statistics: View statistics for this item

Actions (login required)

Item Control Page Item Control Page